Analysis of a new CoS with UBC Vancouver Law Professor questioning him on what evidence exists to prove applicability of the law.

Discrediting the concept of government through refined, effective questioning of bureaucrats and the nature of their legal attacks.

The advantage of using bureaucrat’s admissions against them rather than BYOT (bring your own theory) and taking upon the burden to prove your assertions.

What it does, and doesn’t, mean when bureaucrats can’t answer real questions of evidence.

Bureaucrats conflating a question as an argument so to avoid having to answer the question by claiming you are making a frivolous argument, and how to counter such a move.

An agent admits that when agents receive disagreements with their erroneous assessments; they are trained to respond to it by mischaracterizing it as a “frivolous argument.”

Ineffective government training programs.

Overuse Abuse of the “frivolous” objection when the prosecution can’t defend questions on their legal assertions.

The law professor claims that applicability of the law/jurisdiction is not a matter of evidence and suggests that asking questions of evidence is philosophizing.

Why can’t agents just come out and simply state that they don’t need evidence to prove jurisdiction?

Knowing your audience.

The logical fallacies [circular logic, appeal to authority] and arbitrary operating principals of bureaucrats: “that’s the way it works.”

Making the practice of gutting the STATE’s presumption of legitimacy streamlined and easy enough for Long Island schmucks.

Yet another invitation for critics to address their criticisms [“Marc is a idiot/retarded” and “where has this worked in court?”] with Marc in a real-time open-forum to put the counter-evidence on the table that disproves what has been proven so far.

The hardship of overcoming the judicial misconduct when the judge relieves/bails-out the prosecutor from their burden of proof by assuming some of the factual requirements that the prosecutor is responsible for producing.

Statute-thumping STATE priests, also known as judges, that tend to neglect the requirement of evidence to back up the allegations and assertions of their fellow clergyman, the prosecutor.

IRS supervisor Fred Orth’s call back in response to another government tax agent that avoids damning questions by throwing out the all-encompassing “frivolous argument” objection, despite any argument actually being made, as instructed as part of their training dictates.

Perjury is a felony offense.

Some agents follow the principal that “when all else fails: gaslight.”

The value of books like “Government: Indicted” that detail and report on the most used and abused logical fallacies and entrapment tactics from government.

The unashamed aggression from bureaucrats against even those who know their rights.

The burden-of-proof cannot shift to the defendant unless there are facts behind the assessment.

Examining what evidence there is, if any, to prove one a taxpayer under the law.

Tax agents in Australia are allowed to hallucinate, and/or negative hallucinate, facts and events in order to support their investigation as a matter of statute.

Agents that have done the right thing in the past have been moved from their position.

Driving the point that there has been stays put on past assessments before to give the agent a sense of precedent.

The most dangerous superstition is the belief that government have “the right” to commit crime [steal, murder, lie, ect] with immunity.

Getting specific meaning from their vague language.

Michael from Nevada

Exercising effective damage control with three traffic citations from Las Vegas, NV.

Providing the minimum amount of information to ground forces (police).

Interacting with the court staff and getting them to follow their own written rules and procedure.

The logic behind filing the motion to dismiss template and pointing out that all participation with the court is under threat, duress, and coercion within the paperwork.

Tips for when, how, and who to file paperwork with.

Flow-charting and role-playing procedure for the upcoming court hearing.

Making good, assertive objections.

Persistently asking the judge if the prosecution has provided evidence to prove jurisdiction.

Getting close to the point of hearing termination when asking why the judge is picking up the prosecutor’s burden-of-proof.

How to counter when the judge wants to consider the ticket as evidence of jurisdiction.

Never testify against yourself!

Having a driver’s license is not evidence to prove jurisdiction.

If prosecutors are known for one thing; it is that they will make arguments outside the evidence.

Diane from Illinois

How to avoid building a criminal record after her son was cited for the victimless crime of speeding.

Admits some responsibility for her son not being properly prepared for litigation after insisting him to represent himself pre se.

Why not to use a condescending attorney.

Past successes in the courtroom by litigating as a pro se defendant and not taking stupid assertions on face value.

Measuring the degree to which a judge is willing to extend such a liberal free-pass to the prosecutor on their burden to prove jurisdiction and other essential elements of their so-called case.

Judge skipping hearings, to rush a defendant he intends to railroad, right through the system before they can realize what hit them.

Participating with the NSP Skype group chat to better verse and prepare for court.

Frustrating attempts to get information from the court.

Hammering away the the lack of evidence to support the prosecution’s arguments and not giving them a free-pass on their burden-of-proof.

Avoiding unsuccessful legal-land rabbit trails.

Picking your legal challenges wisely.

Every argument that comes out of the prosecutor’s mouth has to be backed up by a witness with personal firsthand knowledge or evidence.

Being prepared and knowing when and how to make appropriate objections.

Deciphering logical fallacies is more helpful in court than making proper objections. (but fluency in both are strongly recommended!)

14 Comments For This Post

Hey Marc, regarding the CoS, Ya thought for your consideration: You like to use setup questions to lock a person into a position before you go for the kill. Asking if physical presence within the state implies the law applies is such a question. And then you go for “can you show me any evidence…” I’m wondering if perhaps another setup question might improve your position. (And I’m aware that time and attention span are severely limited.) I’m thinking it might be worthwhile getting them to agree that anything which comes before a legal tribunal must be supported by evidence, versus, say an arbitrary claim like, “Itz da roolz!”

By doing this you then have more leverage when you ask for evidence that shows that the laws apply just because you are physically within the state.

Ok! We now have it on the public record from within the UK judicial system namely at Crown Court level the following when asking the question “Please provide evidence of jurisdiction and that your rules and regulations apply to me?” For that reason and only , on each and every occasion the human being had been arrested for a Breach of the Peace on 4 occasions which was quickly overturned by the same Judges once they realised their errors within 10 mins by the Judge sending instructions to De- arrest that person!

( It should be known to those not in the know that the Court of appeal has declared that a Breach of the Peace is only cause by bringing Harm or intending too bring Harm to an other!?)

And the answer given by a UK judge is …….Judge said: “The evidence is here all around you. You are in a court of law and you are here because a case has been brought against you in a magistrates court for hearing in the crown court.

“You are subject to the jurisdiction of the court like every other person in England.

“You are no different from anyone else who lives in the UK he added.

Judge then pointed out that the alledge defendant had not entered pleas to the charges against him.

When read out the three charges the defendant refused to enter a plea.

Judge said this should be listed as not guilty on all three counts.

So he took it upon himself to impose a non plea thereby excepting unauthorised Power of attorney , which must mean by accepting a plea he does so by excepting all liabilities by virtue of such!

Marc, the preparatory stuff with Mike from Vegas was wonderful… But PLEASE, I could only make out about 1/2 of what he was saying as it sounded like he was talking into a pillow! When the audio is so bad, please ask the caller to speak INTO the mic. Pretty please? Expecially when it’s not live and you have the time to get the audio right before you do the segment.

Evidence?..vee dont need no stinking evidence, vee have shiney bedges and guns, you cant ask for evidence of people whom have illusions of grandeur ?, vee’s have guns, THATS our evidence… oops sorry to much coffee, again.

when going into court, and some monkey says he re-presents XYZState/Province etc, ask him/her for that evidence..a signed, notarized? “Power of Attorney” would be of evidence?..i’d say..and if they showed you that, would that make the Big cahoonas then incompetent to be CEO/mngr of any STATE?..just thinking outloud..any help on the above appreciated

Another great show Mark your cutting clarity is resounding. We are subject to the tyranny of the Queen up here in Canada this ass in Vancouver could have at least tried to explain that thru the application of the Charter of rights and Freedoms they presume an oath of servitude to Queen E II. Jurisdiction is oath spoken in Latin like the other guy on the show said about being in my house you have agreed to the rules. Further the Canadian government defines in its own language and documents, Canada is the waterways and surrounding water not the Geographical area at all. So they continue to ignore the facts that they have no jurisdiction (oath SPOKEN not presumed.) I heard a show with you and Frank L the difference between you and he is he likes the idea that the community has a right to force others who havent joined to comply. The foist themselves upon us like some heated teenager not caring if we wish to be F#%&ed. Its rape pure and simple. I hope you realize how important you are to so many of us who are awake.

Why ask for evidence that a supposed law exists, unless you’re assuming that the ‘you’ being accused of breaking the law is actually you? Could it be better for everyone to ask who ‘you’ is, and if it is actually you, ask to speak with the one claiming to make law, and when you agreed to such a law?

Rod, that’s an interesting tactic. I think I recall Marc used to point to the state constitution wherein it said it’s reason for being wS to protect individual rights. It appears that his thinking has moved on from that. Perhaps it is because the psycopathic mind is not swayed so much by concerns over fairness as it is over fears of being exposed, and so he now plows where the earth is most fertile.
Just a thought. Marc is the one with massive experiential evidence.

Good Point NonE… I just know the “slave” word really floored the Secretary of (fictitious)State Investigator that was harassing me. She immediately said “NO” when I asked her if I was a slave. Of course my next question was “Then what makes you think I have to be a citizen just because I was born here? Doesn’t that really translate to you saying: ‘you’re a citizen slave and you have to follow everything we think up for you to follow’…??? She was speechless for about a minute. I thought it was pretty effective in throwing her off balance. May not work on the robed psychopaths in the court rooms though…

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

Upcoming Events

Saturday, August 8th, 2015, 4-7pm EST: Marc returns for another edition of the No STATE Project radio show. Feel fr33 to call-in with your thoughts on tickets, tyrants, assessments, activism, anarchy, agorism, or, of course; any and all criticisms. If you are being attacked by those with arbitrary titles and shiny badges, or if you have an interesting observation or criticism; then please call into the LIVE show at (218) 632-9399, or we can skype you in during a break. You'll need to contact Marc on Skype by searching for username: frankrizzo3, and we can also add you to the NSP skype group chat where you can engage in some courtroom role-play exercises to refine your litigation skills and boost your confidence if you have a court hearing coming up. Also, here is a comprehensive list of the many ways you can interact with the No STATE Project broadcast and community.

If you want to join the forum, you must email me a username so I can create the account. This is to stop the flood of spambots.